February 11, 2012

After Rick Santorum said that women should not serve in combat, citing “emotions,” critics were furious, saying he had insulted women by suggesting that they were too emotional to be depended upon in life-and-death situations.

But Mr. Santorum said Friday that he was actually referring to the emotions of men, not women, saying that men might be distracted from their mission by their “natural instinct” to protect women.

I'm guessing that Rubin is worried that he's stuck on some stereotype about women — they're too "emotional" — but I think he's referring to an argument about the way men feel — that is, an urge to protect women that would skew decisionmaking and performance.

ADDED: As Irene points out in the comments, Santorum made it apparent that he was talking about men's emotions on Friday's "Today" show, which was before my post.

"Santorum explained his completely noncontroversial comments: 'Well, no, I – exactly what I said. I think there's – when you have men and women together in combat I think there's – men have emotions when you see a woman in harm's way....the natural inclination to not focus on the mission but to try to be in a position where you might want to protect someone...' In other words, chivalry."

Would it be consistent with "true feminism" to be concerned about the stereotyping of women as emotional, or too emotional for combat, but not to be concerned about the stereotyping of men as having a "natural protective instinct" toward women?

But really, does it matter? Wouldn't the truth of those statements be more important than how they are perceived ideologically? I mean if it is true that women are too emotional for combat, should they be allowed in combat? If the presence of women in combat changes the behavior of men, for the worse, what then?

As someone pointed out here on a previous thread on this subj, although the Israelies once allowed women in cmbt and cmbt support units, the experience of actual cmbt proved too traumatic for both sexes: the men due to their natural instincts to protect the women, and the women who freaked out in even cmbt "support" units when faced with things like, e.g., cleaning out the blood, seared pieces of flesh, bone and brain matter from battle-damaged tanks. As a result women are no longer posted to even cmbt support units, let alone allowed in direct combat.

But Mr. Santorum said Friday that he was actually referring to the emotions of men, not women, saying that men might be distracted from their mission by their “natural instinct” to protect women.

What BS!? In Muslim countries men put their women in Burkas for a similar reason.

Natural instincts!? I am so outraged that you took this line and are applauding that fool Santorum. Shame!

I would consider our species have evolved to put aside natural instincts (if it is all gender-based) at least where it matters. If you talk to the military, you see how close they are in their respective groups (sorry, don't know the technical term)-- they already protect each other and take care of each other, men among men.

Santorum is a chauvinist who thinks men have to protect women (and of course breed without abortion and contraception).

You seriously believe that mixed sex combat units are a good thing? Like none of the troopers are going to get emotionally involved with another? That is just marvelous, during a firefight when one lover is desperately trying to protect the other at the risk to the unit.

I would consider our species have evolved to put aside natural instincts (if it is all gender-based) at least where it matters. If you talk to the military, you see how close they are in their respective groups (sorry, don't know the technical term)-- they already protect each other and take care of each other, men among men..

I would like to know the extent of pm317's experience with life-threatening situations as well as his background visa vi the military. It sounds to me like he's read about both in a book or maybe caught a movie or two.

Well, either that or his entire point is sarcasm. I'm willing to grant that possibility.

Before anyone talks about females in combat I think it is good to revisit the experience of Major Rhonda Cornum as documented here.

She was captured by the Iraqis in the first Gulf War with two broken arms, a broken knee, and a bullet in her shoulder. Her injuries didn't stop her guard from fondling her breasts and inserting fingers into her vagina and rectum. Cornum shrugged off the assault -- which was her right to do -- but what the Times doesn't include is that the Marine sergeant who was being transported with her started to come to her assistance. That would have gotten him killed, but Cornum had the presence of mind to order him as his superior officer to stand down.

I don't agree with Santorum about a lot of things -- I'm not a social conservative at all -- but I think he's right on this point. Men have historically gone to irrational lengths to protect women who are in harms way. I don't think we should be putting them there.

I think he meant to comment about the emotions of men from the beginning. If he read your blog maybe he realized that at least a few people with good sense heard him correctly.It's feminists who see everything through their own prism here. It's about reality and reality is that men feel protective of women. Even after all these years of being told they should sometimes feel protective and shouldn't other times. Men keep getting mixed signals from women. The only thing men can be sure of is that they will always be wrong in the minds of feminists. Feminists are so messed up themselves they have only their anger to guide them.

Historically, women were protected by society because they are endowed by the natural order to serve a special function. Only women are capable of bringing forth new life. Their exposure to hostile forces would leave them and their progeny vulnerable to corruption. This is, presumably, the reason for society affording special consideration to women who are raped.